[PATCH v2 0/5][LoongArch] Add LoongArch port support.

[Fangrui Song]

On 2021-09-19, Paul Hua via Binutils wrote:
>Hi all:
>
>This is the v2 version of patch set to support LoongArch.
>The v1 patch are on:
>https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2021-August/117697.html

Has the feedback in
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2021-August/117749.html
been incorporated?

>The LoongArch architecture (LoongArch) is an Instruction Set
>Architecture (ISA) that has a Reduced Instruction Set Computer (RISC)
>style.
>The documents are on
>https://loongson.github.io/LoongArch-Documentation/README-EN.html
>
>The ELF ABI Documents are on:
>https://loongson.github.io/LoongArch-Documentation/LoongArch-ELF-ABI-EN.html
>
>The list of patch:
>0001-bfd-LoongArch-BFD-support.patch
>0002-opcodes-LoongArch-Opcodes-Port.patch
>0003-binutils-LoongArch-Binutils-Port.patch
>0004-gas-LoongArch-GAS-Port.patch
>0005-ld-LoongArch-LD-Port.patch

Please drop the R_LARCH_SOP_ relocation types.
I understand that there will be some work on your side, but it will pay
off as every project which may resolve .o relocation types will benefit
from the substantial simplification.

---

The nomenclature is currently quite confusing.

In golang, the architecture is called "loong64".
https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/333909/

In Gentoo, maintainers have decided that loong* is the better name
https://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg93138.html

v8 (contributed by other Loongson teams) uses "loong64" as well.
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/v8/v8/+/3089095

It is necessary to settle on one name instead of two (larch64) (or even three: loongarch64).
Currently, renaming to loong* looks like the best choice.
https://github.com/loongson/binutils-gdb/pull/74 has such a pull request
(renaming LARCH to LOONG) but was unfortunately dismissed.


I strongly encourage that binutils maintainers hold off the patch series
until the naming issue and relocation issue are properly addressed.